From: gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)
Date: Sat, 14 May 94 15:18:43 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Raids in Europe...be careful!
Message-ID: <199405142218.XAA07741@an-teallach.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


: From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>

: Apparently this guy, in Italy, did not (his claim) have any pirated
: software on his machine(s), but it was seized by the Italian feds.
: Other sites, too, I gather.

: This is only a SPECULATION here: With the Clipper program foundering,
: and reaction very negative, and government official wringing their
: hands at their inability to get a handle on things (control), there
: may be alternate strategies put into play.

: A crackdown on pirated material could be one avenue. Net porn could be
: another. And should there be some highly visible case involving
: encryption, bombers, child porn, terrorists, whatever, action could be
: swift.

FYI, here's a couple of articles I posted to the uk comms advocacy group
some time ago.  I was more prohetic in some earlier posts but I didn't keep
copies.  By the way the headlines about the birmingham porn bust with
PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS TWO!!! were about a month *after*
I suggested as much below...

I agree with Tim.  I don't think it's paranoia to assume that *all* our
Governments are trying to regain control over this medium of truly free
speech - hurrying to find ways to control us *before* a significant
proportion of the population has access and can bypass the national
propoganda machines.

G

>From gtoal Thu Mar 10 19:38:21 1994
To: uk-org-community@demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Don't say you weren't warned.
X-Phone: +44 31 662 0366
X-Fax: +44 31 662 4678
X-Organisation: An Teallach Limited
Status: RO

	 gt> This is *not* about dirty pictures;

	Errm, I think you'll find it is (which doesn't mean I consder them 
	dirty - it's your choice of phrase)...

	 gt> it's about Government control of the people.

	Which again, is hardly the remit of CommUnity then, is it?  Go talk 
	to the 'freedom and liberty' brigade.

As I said, you went belly-up on civil liberties right from the start;
that's why I never joined.  It damn well *should* be the remit of CU.

The more technology the government has at its disposal for control of
the people, the easier it becomes to exercise that control.  CU is the
only organisation in Britain that has the knowlege and expertise to
spot those signs of encroaching technology abuse, and do something
about it.

Let me spell it out for you.  Net.pornography, if it's a crime at all, is
a crime carried out depending on jurisdiction either by the supplier
(whoever posted the article) or the recipient - the person who displays
the file on a screen or printer.  The correct attitude for CU to take
should be to insist that all other persons in the transaction - network
providers, store-and-forward news hosts, the phone company, local BBS's
etc - should be in no way culpable for what goes through their hosts.
This argument should be extended to all 'data crimes' - copyright violation,
slander, passing stolen information, etc.

This is something that CU should be fighting for.  By turning a blind
eye to the initial salvoes from HMG which are specifically aimed at
pornography, you make it much harder for yourselves to construct a general
argument later, when the govt cracks down on the use of cryptography,
or articles posted in the US about the sex life of the royal family, 
or whistle-blowing articles about government surveillance or if they
decide section 28 applies to news spools on public university machines
and they ban soc.motss - where exactly does it stop once you let them start?
Think for yourself what sort of things happen on the net that scare
the govt shitless.  Do I have to spell it _all_ out for you?

And worse; it only takes *one* of these objections against completely free
speech on the net to make it onto the statute books, for HMG to be justified
in introducing draconian police-state measures such as automatic scanning
of networks and phone lines for 'illegal material'.  By the time that
framework is in place (more so than it is already I mean, if you know
anything about System X and Menwith Hill...) civil liberties in this
country will be a fond memory.

Not to mention putting impossible pressures on people like demon and
pipex to self-censor themselves, the way uknet used to and JIPS still
does.

Remember, the govt has the gutter press on their side - they're incredibly
easily manipulated to splurge "UK UNIVERSITY SUPPLIES PORN TO 2_YR OLDS"
or whatever - and the Internet (never mind the kiddy BBS circuit) has
no-where near the popular level of awareness that it has in the US. 
Joe Public is *not* going to give a tinker's damn if we're clamped down on -
we're just some poncy rich techno elitists that he doesn't understand
and doesn't sympathise with in the slightest.  Why should he care that
we're up in arms because or networks are being scanned for porno pictures.
Especially if we don't seem to care much ourselves.

	 gc> Fortunately by the time it's too late to do anything about it' I'll
	 gc> be outta here.

	Aaah.  A fingers in the air parting shot, eh?  Oh well, in that case 
	I'm wasting my time replying to you specifically, but perhaps I can 
	assuage fears that you might raise unnecessarily in others.

No no, not at all.  I'll be in the country for a few months more, but
I'll shortly be emigrating permanently to a country where automatic
surveillance the like of which GCHQ enjoys is still a gleam in the eye
of their security services, and where they at least have an explicit
constitution that can be used to defend liberty, despite it being a
hard fight and one that they don't always win.  In the UK we're not even
given the chance to fight.

By 'too late', I didn't mean too late for you to reply to my article,
but too late to do anything about the forthcoming crackdown on the
nets that I forsee coming within the next couple of years.  The Americans
have been going about it like a bull in a china shop with their panic
Clipper and FBI Wiretap proposals; the UK govt does things more low-key
and you won't even realise you've been screwed until after the appropriate
legislation has been quietly slipped through and they make some loudly
advertised arrests, carefully mentioning how the dastardly criminals were
caught by the use of high technology (ie making sure everyone knows it
can happen to *you*, and bullying you into giving up whatever it is you
were doing - just like the psychology behind TV detector vans...).  This
whole cryptography business and access to truly uncontrolled media has
the spooks and the govt worried, now that a few of the more astute of them
are actually starting to *understand* the power it gives to individuals.

Never before in the last decade have people been able to communicate their
thoughts completely privately, short of physically going to talk to someone.
The arrival of strong cryptography means that Big Aunty is no longer
omniscient; she's pissed off about it, and she *will* do someting about
it.  It's up to you guys to stop her.  You may think it's none of your
business and should be left to the 'freedom and liberty' brigade, but
its your freedom and your liberty on the networks that will be the first
to be lost.

Don't say you weren't warned.  I'll drop in from the States in 2000 and 
see how things are going, if uk.org.community is still allowed to exist
that is, and maybe we can all have a big laugh.  One way or another.

[Makes note:  file this post under 're-read-in-jan-2000' :-)]

G

>From gtoal Wed Mar 23 16:21:21 1994
To: uk-org-community@demon.co.uk
Subject: It *can* happen here.
X-Phone: +44 31 662 0366
X-Fax: +44 31 662 4678
X-Organisation: An Teallach Limited
Status: RO

I suggested several months ago that the UK govt was quietly fuming about
encryption but wouldn't make a fuss - just casually slipping in some
legislation, or busting someone on some odd provision of the existing
telecoms act.  Well, it hasn't happened here yet, but an identical
thing is happening in the Netherlands.  I definitely think it's
coming soon...

I hope CU will have their arguments, information packs, and publicity
strategy ready for it, and not be caught with their trousers down.

regards

G
: Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
: From: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
: Subject: The Dutch government plans to ban encryption
: Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
: Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 11:28:27 GMT
: Lines: 15

: Last monday a Dutch newspaper reported that a law is on its way
: concerning telecommunications. As a minor point in this law encryption
: of digital data will be forbidden.

: Needless to say the Dutch digital community is in uproar over this at
: the moment.  It is unclear yet what is going to happen though. The most
: frightening thing is that some politicians commented that "This is an
: uninteresting small technicality" or words to that effect.

: I will report on developments.

: Hans van Staveren

: P.S. Sorry if you see this twice, also in comp.security.misc, I misposted
:      On the other hand it is important enough.



>From gtoal Tue Apr 19 17:45:43 1994
To: comp-org-eff-talk@demon.co.uk, uk-org-community@demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: It *can* happen here.
X-Phone: +44 31 662 0366
X-Fax: +44 31 662 4678
X-Organisation: An Teallach Limited
Status: RO

: * In a message originally to gtoal@an-teallach.com, Oliver Clarke said:

: OC> Fortunately the phone-tapping
: OC> legislation here is extremely tough (you might be amazed to
: OC> hear what procedures have to be gone through to get a full
: OC> phone tap in the UK), and the outlawing of encryption can
: OC> only be for one reason  -  so that the transmission can be
: OC> monitored.

: Coincidentally, I'd just been reading what the Home Office said in 
: their  memorandum of evidence to the HoC committee...

: I quote from the HMSO document, page 16, para. 25:-

: "While it is generally an offence for a person to intercept any 
: message in the  course of its transmission without a warrant to do so 
: issued by the Secretary
: Of State under Section 2 of the Interception Of Communications Act 
: 1985,  section 1 of the 1985 Act provides a defence against 
: prosecution for persons  intercepting a communication for the purpose 
: of enforcing the  Telecommunications Act and other legislation 
: relating to the use of  telecommunication services.  It would 
: therefore be lawful for the police or  any body licensed to run a 
: telecommunications service, such as British  Telecom, to monitor a 
: public telecommunication system for the purpose of  enforcing the 
: legal prohibition on sending indecent or obscene matter over the  telephone."

: So, whilst the process of obtaining a Home Office warrant in a case involving
: "non-comms" crime might be involved, investigations to detect 
: offences  contrary to s43 Telecommunications Act and any degree of 
: monitoring the  investigating officer wished to engage in, could, 
: according to this  interpretation, proceed _without_ the necessity to 
: obtain _any_ warrant  whatsoever... 
: Interesting wording though, isn't it?  " the 1985 Act provides a 
: defence ",  rather than " the 1985 Act authorises ".  I must take a 
: peek at the Act  itself, methinks...

: Dave

Thank you Dave, that was *precisely* the sort of Government shennanigans
I predicted would happen here some months ago, for which people like Creosole
had the gall to call me paranoid.  Nice to see I can still second-guess
the bastards correctly.  It may be an old regulation, but the fact that
they explicitly mentioned it in this report means they're definitely
thinking about brushing it off and using it.

As I said a long time ago, the strong encryption stuff hasn't gone
unnoticed by our Government.  They're more subtle at population
control than the Americans - no Clipper here - just beef up some
old laws hidden in the Telecom Act, use the technology they already
have in place to trawl the phonelines,  and make a few spectacular busts
-- the 'chilling effect' of that will do the rest of the job for them.

You want perhaps to rethink CommUnity's stance on porn/free speech/etc
now in light of this big hint on the way things are going from the
Home Office?

G

>From gtoal Tue Apr 19 18:54:50 1994
To: comp-org-eff-talk@demon.co.uk, uk-org-community@demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: It *can* happen here.
X-Phone: +44 31 662 0366
X-Fax: +44 31 662 4678
X-Organisation: An Teallach Limited
Status: RO

> From: Dave.Spinks%f106.n440.z2.fidonet.org@nowster.demon.co.uk (Dave Spinks)

: Not to mention putting impossible pressures on people like demon and
: pipex to self-censor themselves, the way uknet used to and JIPS still
: does.

(This has already started - demon have recently posted a disclaimer that
the newsgroups we subscribe to may in the future be logged...)

: Remember, the govt has the gutter press on their side - they're incredibly
: easily manipulated to splurge "UK UNIVERSITY SUPPLIES PORN TO 2_YR OLDS"
: or whatever - and the Internet (never mind the kiddy BBS circuit) has
: no-where near the popular level of awareness that it has in the US. 
: Joe Public is *not* going to give a tinker's damn if we're clamped down on -
: we're just some poncy rich techno elitists that he doesn't understand
: and doesn't sympathise with in the slightest.  Why should he care that
: we're up in arms because or networks are being scanned for porno pictures.
: Especially if we don't seem to care much ourselves.

This has started too - see the Brum case - every single quotation in fact
mentioned that the porn intercepted included photographs of 2-yr olds.
(I haven't seen the contents of this server, but I've heard that it was
a bootleg mirror of the US "Rusty & Eddie's" BBS, which is most definitely
*not* a paedophile BBS.  Anyone want to bet it was 99% 'straight' porn and
maybe one picture of someone's kid with them at a nudist camp?  We're
seeing a deliberate propoganda war here - just compare all the quotations
in all the different papers - straight from a single source, no critical
commentary added anywhere by journalists.

: By 'too late', I didn't mean too late for you to reply to my article,
: but too late to do anything about the forthcoming crackdown on the
: nets that I forsee coming within the next couple of years.  The Americans

(Make that months...)

: [Makes note:  file this post under 're-read-in-jan-2000' :-)]

Or maybe even April 1994 :-)  I thought this article was worth reposting
because when I posted it on March 10th, some sanctimonious shit said that
such wariness of our wonderful enlightened Tory government was paranoid.
I wonder if anyone's opinion of the state of affairs in this country
has changed following the events of the last month.

To spell it out again:

1) The law referred to above by the Home Office that allows them to
   trawl data lines for porn will be used.  They'll start small, just
   going for known targets - maybe readers of alt.binaries.erotica
   groups as supplied to them by the logs of large newsfeed sites.
2) They'll find encrypted files - lots of press publicity will follow
3) They'll demand powers to force disclosure of the plaintext in 
   case there's any porn encrypted.  They may not introduce a new
   law - just find some obscure existing provision of the Telecommunications
   Act, and beef it up a little
4) The public, in the shape of the X million readers of the tabloids 
   without an opinion to call their own, will go along with this 100%
   just like they did with that recent abomination over horror videos.
5) CommUnity, who rolled over on the porn issue ages ago, won't be able
   to field a proper defense because they've already shot themselves
   in the foot.
6) Newsgroups per se won't be banned, but possession of the offending
   articles from certain newsgroups will be a criminal offense and
   people *will* be prosecuted.
7) IP Vendors will voluntarily start blocking newsgroups and NNTP
   connections, to cover their own perceived liability.
8) A ban on strong encryption will be enforced by using the features
   of System X exchanges to locate datacomms users who'll then be
   monitored at random.  Enough convictions will discourage others
   from free speech.

G